How an organisation might decide whether to support a 'Yes' vote

Your organisation might want to declare or advocate a ‘Yes’ vote for the Voice, even if you don't have a Reconciliation Action Plan. None will support a 'No' vote.

For the reasons offered here, my view is that to vote ‘No’ in the upcoming referendum is to say ‘I know better’. And that to take that all-too-familiar stance is to demonstrate once more why a Voice is needed.

While we all have our personal positions, many public and private organisations are contemplating whether they should express a position publicly. As a rugby player and participant for over 50 years, I was proud this morning to see Rugby Australia’s eloquent statement supporting the Voice.

It is more than appropriate for public and private organisations to support a ‘Yes’ vote, as they are starting to do.

Few if any non-political organisations would come out publicly and say ‘Vote No’. There will be plenty of political organisations and high-profile individuals doing so, and more strident voices on social media. A lot of what they say will be confronting and distressing for First Nations Australians, and few if any organisations will want to add fuel to that fire.

The question then is whether an organisation declares or advocates for a ‘Yes’ vote, or stays silent. The answer may lie in what the organisation has declared as its values. In many cases, it would have to declare or advocate for a ‘Yes’ vote to be true to those values. If they have a Reconciliation Action Plan (or ‘RAP’) in place, then there really is no question.

An organisation should speak from its declared values

While individuals may hold their values and beliefs very close to their chest, public and private organisation rarely do. Whatever they say or don’t say about the Voice should be consistent with their declared values.

The felt need to be declarative on their values is why so many organisations are vocal on LGBTQI+ or environmental issues, for example. They are speaking not only for their own people, but for those throughout the community who cannot assume they will have all the rights and opportunities of others, and of course for the natural world.

What is different about the Voice? Many feel uncomfortable that they do not have First Nations people at work with them, or as partners, or even as occasional working colleagues.

Our First Nations peoples have generously invited us, the diverse immigrant populations of the last 253 years, to walk with them. It is entirely up to us how we respond. It is our turn to speak.

Indeed, it puzzles me why the ‘Yes’ campaign, to the extent it has yet been revealed, is dominated by First Nations personalities, as admired and persuasive as they are. If the invitation has been given to us by their peers, would it be more persuasive for we non-indigenous people to voice our response and our reasons?

Organisations with a RAP

For many organisations with a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP), there is really no question. There are four levels of RAP: Reflect, Innovate, Stretch and Elevate. Organisations with an Innovate or higher level of RAP have committed to develop and strengthen relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and to engage staff and stakeholders in reconciliation. Advocating for a ‘Yes’ vote is consistent with both commitments – silence is a denial of both.

A Reflect RAP is a commitment to scope and develop relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, decide on a vision for reconciliation and explore a sphere of influence. That level does not call for ‘Yes’ advocacy, though silence may limit the intended relationships and spheres of influence.

Organisations without a RAP but with expressed values

It’s no longer a big call for companies to build a suite of values that their people have either helped develop or have been asked to sign up for. The expectation is that they will be relevant to decision making – if not they are a hollow distraction, or worse.

There are dozens of declared values, and most reinforce just a few themes. Below I’ve tried to group those that would support declaring or advocating for a ‘Yes’ vote, and those that are neutral. I could find no values that would support declaring or advocating for a ‘No’ vote.

Values that might support declaring or advocating for a ‘Yes’ voice

·??????Innovation, Improvement, Education, Adaptability

·??????Respect, Inclusion, United

·??????Equity, Human rights, Dignity, Justice

·??????Making a difference, Passion, Optimism

·??????Sustainability, Environment, Natural systems

·??????Honesty, Humility, Integrity, Trust, Selflessness

Values that are neutral

·??????Collaboration, Teamwork, Communication

·??????Accountability, Transparency, Vulnerability, Accessibility, Openness

·??????Boldness, Curiosity, Courage

When considering your own organisational values, consider also the proposition that ‘What you walk past is the standard you accept’ – a phrase often co-opted to an organisational culture.

Let’s walk

In the debate to come on the Voice, there will be opinions expressed that are hard to accept. The AFL and other sporting bodies battle with those expressions every weekend.

If they are the dominant voices heard in this debate, it will be a very sad time for Australia, one that will take more than a generation to recover from.

Instead, with your voices, this Referendum may surprise us. It may be more like 1967 than 1999, leaving us to wonder what the fuss was really about, as we take another step forward towards a Makarrata.

[These are personal views.]